Physics Education Research and Contexts of Student Learning

Why do university students exit courses capable of solving difficult analytic problems
(e.g., calculate current in a complex circuit), but are unable to explain the same content
conceptually (e.g., which light bulb is brighter in such a circuit)?
Why do many of the educational reforms being called for today echo the calls of
almost 100 years ago?
Building on the well-established foundations of physics education research that have focused on
student cognition, curriculum design and course practices, this research program establishes
another perspective from which we may understand student learning in physics one that
emphasizes learning in context. The proposed work investigates the central role of context in the
practice of physics education. That is, how and what students learn depends not only on
traditionally conceived content but also upon the formation of tasks, class environments, and
broader institutional structures in which the content is embedded. Such a perspective begins to
explain a host of research questions, such as those listed above, and is directed at understanding
sustainable and scalable models of reform in physics education.
This project coordinates research studies on the role of context in student learning at three
different levels: the individual, the course, and the department. Because these three contextual
levels of educational practice strongly influence one another, they are studied simultaneously to
discover the relations among them. While this project spans all three levels, it does not strive to
answer all questions within them. Instead, the project focuses on specific sets of questions
surrounding common themes: tools, such as the use of computer simulations; practices, such as
teaching as a mechanism of learning; and surrounding frames, such as departmental norms and
their influence on student learning. Many of these research questions are new in physics (e.g.,
examining the effects of having students teach others in order to learn) while others augment
existing lines of research (e.g., the role of computer simulations in the classroom). Collectively,
these investigations provide a framework for understanding each of the individual research
studies, which allows us to interpret their results and portability to other environments.
Furthermore, their coordinated outcomes will result in meaningful models of context in student
learning, which will serve as the foundation for long-term research in this area.
The intellectual merit of this CAREER proposal is to create a deeper understanding of the
role of context in learning physics. This essential aspect of education complements existing
physics education research, and must be considered to fully and effectively address
improvements in student learning of physics. This work will develop our understanding of tools,
practices and surrounding frames of physics education at the levels of the student, the classroom,
and the institution.
The broader impact of this program will be to improve educational practices at each level
and better understand how to make them sustainable and scalable. These efforts will infuse
education into broader physics practice, and simultaneously make physics more accessible in
other educational realms. Recently, the field of physics education research (PER) has undergone
substantial growth.1 The proposed efforts will develop and promote this relatively new subdiscipline of physics, will build a new research line in PER at the University of Colorado, and
will establish a long-term career path. Many of the studies of broader context will also impact
educational reform in other disciplines. Finally, this program will reach thousands of students at
the University of Colorado and establish models for reaching students at all large-scale research
universities.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
For font size and page formatting specifications, see GPG section II.C.

Total No. of
Pages

Page No.*
(Optional)*

Cover Sheet for Proposal to the National Science Foundation

Project Summary

(not to exceed 1 page)

Table of Contents

Project Description (Including Results from Prior

NSF Support) (not to exceed 15 pages) (Exceed only if allowed by a
specific program announcement/solicitation or if approved in
advance by the appropriate NSF Assistant Director or designee)

15

References Cited

Biographical Sketches

(Not to exceed 2 pages each)

Budget

2
8

(Plus up to 3 pages of budget justification)

Current and Pending Support

Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources

Special Information/Supplementary Documentation

Appendix (List below. )

(Include only if allowed by a specific program announcement/
solicitation or if approved in advance by the appropriate NSF
Assistant Director or designee)
Appendix Items:

*Proposers may select any numbering mechanism for the proposal. The entire proposal however, must be paginated.
Complete both columns only if the proposal is numbered consecutively.

I. Introduction
How might we substantively include context in our models of student learning,
course practice, and institutional reform in physics?
What are productive models and practices for sustainable and scalable educational
reform?
My research program addresses these related research questions by examining the multiple and
intertwined levels of context of student learning. Rather than focus solely on one aspect of
student learning (e.g. competence at moving among various representational formats in physics),
I research these questions of context, in context. The following research program examines three
levels, or frames of context, of education that collectively shape the educational experience in
physics: student, course, and departmental practice. While such a program spans a remarkably
broad domain, I am not attempting to solve all problems in educational reform at these levels.
Rather, the set nine inter-related research and education efforts discussed below are designed to:

emphasize the great gains we might make in research and reform by considering the

broader perspective in which individual efforts exist,

promote reformed educational practice at the department in a sustainable manner,
build a new focus area in the doctoral program of the physics department at the
University of Colorado, Boulder: physics education research, and
set a career trajectory for me that will continue well beyond the scope of this
CAREER funding

A.

BACKGROUND: CALLS TO INCLUDE CONTEXT

As I first started teaching an advanced undergraduate and graduate level course in physics, I
noted that a large fraction of my students had passed the introductory courses with high grades,
and yet were unable to answer half of the questions correctly on a basic conceptual survey of the
field.2 The same survey issued to students taking the introductory level course yielded results
that were even worse; students scored 25% correct upon entering the introductory course and
scored 35% correct upon exiting. The most basic concepts covered in these physics courses were
not reaching the students.
Of course, this situation is not new and has been reported extensively within the physics
community3,4,5,6,7 and well as by cognitive psychologists.8 Traditionally taught physics classes
fail to impart robust conceptual understanding, even for those students who perform well on
class exams. Faculty researchers have found that students can calculate the potential difference
in a complicated, abstract circuit diagram, but cannot correctly predict what happens to current,
brightness, voltage, and power in a far simpler circuit using more realistic iconography.9
Findings such as this have spurred researchers to develop new curricula,10 rearrange course
structure,11,12 and study student learning.13,14
To date, discussion of university student learning in physics been largely student and content
centered.6,7 A common goal of these efforts is to design activities that promote conceptual
understanding for the large fraction of students who fail to do so in traditional forms of
instruction. As thoroughly reviewed by McDermott and Redish (1999)6 and Redish (2003),7
researchers have gone to great lengths to create environments supportive of such conceptual
development. However, the environments that promote such student learning remain underPD-1

theorized. Local culture and context are taken to be implicit or are merely alluded to in these
student- and content-centered models of student learning. While the theorists of physics learning
have moved toward a more differentiated view of the learner (few would defend the view that
students themselves are homogenous), the contexts in which learning occurs are treated more
generically. We have yet to provide thorough accounts of how context and the teaching/learning
process are interconnected. In order to understand what and how elements of learning
environments shape students' understanding, it is necessary to develop a detailed description of
context and models of interaction between context and student learning. My research strives to
articulate an educationally useful conception of context, and develops, applies and tests models
of how context participates in the process of student learning in physics.
In recent years within the physics education research community, context has begun to
emerge as topic of discussion Researchers recognize the necessity for including context and in
so doing make implicit calls for a more differentiated understanding of context and of the
dynamic relations between learning and context. Redish emphasizes that that the conceptual
learning that occurs in a constructivist approach to education15,16 depends upon context what he
refers to as the context principle.7 While he demonstrates that different contexts yield differing
results for student learning, the definition of context and the relations of context and learning are
yet to be explored. diSessa, Hammer and Elby recently have revisited their studies of
epistemology and judgment in physics problem solving.17 They argue for a context-sensitive
activation of finer-grained knowledge elements, (pg. 238) to explain why a student (J) shifts
epistemological stances through the course of clinical interviews given very subtle shifts in
problem formation. They conclude, that beliefs seemed unable to carry the burden of
explaining Js behaviors. Instead we offered the idea of judgment in context . . . (pg. 284)
These researchers begin to differentiate context by delineating macro-contexts (e.g. physics vs.
art) from micro-context (e.g. formation / presentation of a particular problem). Similarly, in
discussions of transfer, researchers examine whether or not students can apply similar
procedures and tools for problem solving in different contexts. In examinations of student
learning during the course of interviews, Rebello and colleagues develop a model of transfer of
conceptual mastery of physics that helps them characterize the dynamics of learning and the
mechanisms of transfer.18 In such investigations, context (both that of the interview and that of
the domains of transfer) plays a critical role. The approaches of Redish, of diSessa, Elby and
Hammer, and of Rebello and colleagues provide a good point of departure for the present effort
to elaborate on the concept of context. While these discussions emphasize students, the present
research line strives to make a more detailed examination of what is meant by context and how it
shapes and is shaped by student learning.
B.

MODELS FOR INCLUSION: FRAMES OF CONTEXT

In other fields focusing on student learning, context has played a central role. Socio-cultural
researchers of learning in anthropology, education and psychology have a long-standing tradition
of emphasizing the social, cultural and context-bound nature of education. My research seeks to
bridge the work that emerges from this tradition with the traditions in physics education research
described above. My goal is to emphasize the role of context in physics learning by drawing
upon research that stresses the situated and embedded nature of learning,19,20 and the role of local
culture and the use of cultural tools that mediate human action.21,22 This work holds context
central to student learning, not as an analytically separate factor, nor as the backdrop against
which student learning occurs, but as an integral part of student learning. Students (and other

PD-2

educational participants) shape and are shaped by the

context in which these educational endeavors occur.
Department
Despite our everyday understanding of the
definition of context, such a notion is insufficient for
delineating its role in student learning. My approach
applies Coles use of embedded context21 to identify
Course
particular levels of context, or frames of context, that
are critical to this examination of the educational
process.23 The metaphor of frames of context, or
collection of surrounding conditions and lens of focus,
Student
is particularly useful in identifying varying levels, or
scope, of context to which we attend. Figure 1
Concept
Task
illustrates one such example: a student may be working
on a task (teaching other students), which is part of a
class (introductory physics), which in turn is part of a
Figure 1: Frames of Context: embedded
larger system (the department). Of course these frames
levels of context that shape (and are
of context extend inward and outward: teaching
shaped) by student learning.
involves particular actions, and the department is part
of a university and larger social and economic structure. At the same time, participants belong to
multiple frames of context not shown e.g., students are embedded in other nested frames such
as family and personal relations. Notably the system we focus on is simultaneously embedded
(our examination of student learning sits within a course) and hierarchical (while students can
affect the outcomes of the course, generally the outer layers influence the inner more
significantly). At the same time Figure 1 represents a static image, which captures neither the
dynamic nature of learning, nor the relational nature of these frames. For this shortcoming, it is
important to consider the relational notion of frames of context. Frames of context include the
collection of components and the relations among them. Elements of a system are shaped by
their relations with other elements, and hence, removing an element from the system to examine
its features necessarily reshapes it. Such a conception of embedded nature of learning goes a
long way to explain why individuals may be perfectly capable of calculating and comparing
prices in a store, but unable to perform equivalent operations on a formal test.24 So too might we
begin to understand that our efforts at educational reform do not sit in isolation they shape and
are shaped by surrounding structures / contexts. My research program builds on this model of
frames of context to address the inclusion of context in our understanding of student learning and
to promote sustainable and scalable forms of educational practice.

II. Research/ Educational Programs:

A set of nine coordinated research and education efforts are designed to emphasize the broad and
inter-related perspectives of frames of context. That is, research on how a student understands
various representational formats will depend upon surrounding and surrounded frames of context
-- the situation in which the question is asked and the resources present (in addition to a variety
of other factors such as personal beliefs and larger-scale influences, like the value of education).
This CAREER program outlines three frames of context for investigation of student learning in
physics: the micro-level of student actions, the level of course structure, and the broader scale of
institutional influences. While particular research activities described below may be located
within a given frame of context, my approach emphasizes the relations among these various
PD-3

frames, paying particular attention to the dynamic nature of student learning within and across
these levels of inquiry. To facilitate an examination across each of these frames of context of
student learning in physics, my research follows particular themes: use of tools, practices, and
meta-level regulation and surrounding features. A summary of my proposed research projects
and their relations are listed in Figure 2.
Theme
Frame
of context

a. Individual
b. Course
c. Department

i. tools
Representational
competence
Role of simulation in
undergraduate courses
Faculty use of PERbased materials

ii. practices
Learning by teaching
Physics 4810: Teaching
and learning in physics
Programs in graduate,
post-doc, and faculty
preparation

iii. meta/ surrounding

features
Student attitudes and
beliefs (ABs)
Secondary adaptation of
reforms
Influence of
departmental norms on
program success

Figure 2: Research programs that make up the CAREER proposal. Programs are organized by frame of context
(individual, course, and department) and by theme (tools, practices, and meta-features).

In the following sections each of the research activities is described. While they exist in
various states of maturity, they are coordinated in addressing the fundamental research questions
of the role of context in student learning and how to create and understand sustainable and
scaleable reform. These areas serve as rich veins of research that will thrive during the period of
my CAREER program, and continue over the rest of my career.
Each of the research activities below has direct implications for and influence on the teaching
practice at the University of Colorado. That is, each research program will result in tools,
practices or infrastructure for promoting improved education (locally and ultimately elsewhere).
Simultaneously, these research activities will support the development of a new doctoral research
line in physics by providing a variety of directed research activities for graduate students in the
newly formed Physics Education Research Group at Colorado (PER@C).
The overarching methodological framework for this study is that of a design-experiment,
which emphasizes simultaneously engaging in research on learning and education, and
transformation of practices that lead to student, course and institutional development.25,26 Each
element, of research and of practice, will be used to inform the other. As such, the findings will
be grounded so as to make them relevant to the real practices at universities and portable to other
institutions seeking to employ the resulting models and findings. My approach applies a mixture
of methods, using both quantitative and qualitative analyses to capture both the process of
development (generally through qualitative research) and the outcomes (often summarized as
quantitative data). Each form of data collection, whether survey instrument, observation,
interview, or project-based assessment will be used both formatively, to shape these research
projects and summatively, to evaluate outcomes. Throughout the course of this coordinated
program there will be tight coupling between research, teaching and education.

PD-4

A. INDIVIDUAL

CONTEXT

1. Representational competence with educational application: curricular modification

How do students respond to different representational formats (pictorial, mathematical, etc.)
in learning physics?
From a socio-cultural perspective, the use of tools (such as language, or representations)
characterizes higher order cognition.27 Tools not only facilitate but shape how we think and
act.27,28 In this research project, we have begun to examine student competence using varying
representational tools (e.g. graphs, mathematical formula, pictures, language) to solve physics
problems. While experts have been able to effectively use, translate, and coordinate differing
representational formats,29 students often see isomorphic problems as different simply because of
representational format.29,30
How does student performance differ by representation?
Why? For instance, is this a function of the student (as suggested by learning-style
research), the environment, or the interplay between student and environment?
Does student choice of representational format play a role?
Can students be specifically taught representational competence in physics?
In our recent pilot studies of a large-enrollment algebra-based physics class, students solved
isomorphic problems in four different representational formats. We found that there are
statistically significant performance differences between isomorphic problems. For example, of
218 students who solved the same problem using graphical representation and pictorial
representations, 77% solved the graphical problem correctly and 62% solved the pictorial
problem correctly. This difference is statistically significant (p = 0.006, 2-tailed binomial test).
Subsequently, students were given a single problem multiple-choice quiz where they selected the
problem format. As a control, part of the class was assigned the follow-up quiz with a random
format, allowing a comparison with the group that was provided a choice. Here we found that
allowing students to choose which representational form they use increases student performance
under some circumstances, and reduces it in others, as shown in Figure 3.31
Such preliminary findings are indicative that both representation formats and student ability to
select representational formats play a significant role in student achievement. Future work will
include: i) refining and broadening the instruments (e.g. to ask questions in a variety of content
areas), ii) further validating the questions / student choices by interviews and open-response
questions, iii) understanding
the influence of the course (a
Verbal
Math
Graphical Pictorial
larger frame of context) and
0.81
0.90
0.96
0.39
Choice
the representations used in
(N = 21)
(N = 42)
(N = 28)
(N = 58)
text, lecture etc., iv) testing in
a variety of other environments
0.32
0.13
0.53
0.83
Control
(the calculus based course,
(N = 19)
(N = 15)
(N = 17)
(N = 18)
physics for non-majors), v)
developing curricular elements
p = 0.002
p < 0.0001
p = 0.0004
p = 0.0012
which make representation
Figure 3: Student performance on isomorphic problems in differing
explicit and promote
representational formats. One group (choice) selected format, the other
representational competence
(control) was randomly assigned problem format.
among the students.
PD-5

These activities will comprise the bulk of a doctoral thesis for one of my graduate advisees
and occur over a 3 year time-span. Year 1: instrument design, validation, and broadening with
baseline data on student performance; Year 2: develop and pilot work on curricular
modifications in two or three content areas (e.g. mechanics and optics); Year 3: revised curricula
to support representational competence, finalized instrument and analysis.
2. Learning by teaching with educational application: student practice, e.g homework
Why is teaching such an effective mode of learning?
While it is colloquially understood that people learn well by teaching material (anecdotally it is
easy to get faculty to admit that they do not understand material until they teach it), few studies
in physics have researched the relations between teaching and the associated learning for the
person teaching. Nonetheless, a variety of curricular reforms recognize the value of teaching and
do emphasize collaboration.9,10,32 ,33,34,35 Paperts early work emphasized the role of teaching -fourth grade students made computer software to teach third grade students about fractions.36 He
demonstrated that the fourth graders understood fractions better than their counterparts who
engaged in more traditional forms of instruction.

Do students learn better by teaching concepts? Under what conditions?

How do students reorient their beliefs about knowledge in order to teach?
What models of cognition and context support the approach of teaching to learn?
My prior work demonstrated that a course that heavily incorporates the activity of teaching
physics promotes students conceptual development in the domain.2 In this course, half the
students were given the task of teaching younger students, the other half were assigned
traditional homework for the same amount of time. Those teaching performed better on
conceptual tests of this material; however, these data are too few to make definitive judgments.
The next steps of this study are two-fold: experimental and theoretical.
Experimental: study student learning from teaching vs. other forms of educational practice
(homework, lab etc) for the same time on task in a variety of differing environments.
Theoretical: Begin to describe why teaching is so effective as a learning tool. Such work would
build on the ideas of contextual constructivism in physics,23 of developing students
epistemology,17 and of epistemological framing.37 The context in which one teaches, how
someone perceives knowledge, and what resources an individual uses to frame his perception of
a task all shape a persons approach to understanding that task.
In the second year of this project, a class on teaching and learning physics (established during
the first year and described more below) will be used as a test-bed for assessing student learning
from the practice of teaching (using controls as described above). Identifying and developing
theoretical models will shape studies in future years, which would include infusing microteaching opportunities into the lecture and recitation sections of the large-scale introductory
physics courses and following graduate students engaged in teaching opportunities described in
sections below. Through carefully designed studies such as those outlined above, we will be
able to determine at what point in a students mastery of material, it is appropriate for a student
to consider teaching as a mechanism to concretize his or her own understanding.

PD-6

3. Attitudes and beliefs with educational application to: course structure and evaluation
How do student attitudes and beliefs shape learning in courses?
In addition to the traditional content within any course, there are extensive sets of attitudes and
beliefs about science we teach to our students. The way we conduct our classes send messages
about how, why, and by whom science is learned. Such meta-messages have been referred to as
the "hidden curriculum.7 As offered in traditionally taught courses, some of the hidden
curriculum is beneficial (e.g., the message that science is a coherent representation of the world)
while other aspects are detrimental (e.g., the notion that women cannot be strong scientists).
While decades of physics education research have reformed classroom practices to improve
student mastery of conceptual domains,6,7 these same class environments are found not to
improve student attitudes and beliefs (ABs). In fact, normally, students are found to regress from
more expert-like beliefs to more novice beliefs over the course of a semester.7,38 In our findings
and those of prior researchers, it is notable that such regression of students' ABs are seen even
for courses where reform pedagogy is used and improved conceptual gains are observed.

How do student ABs relate to their performance and retention in a physics course?
What course practices shape and are shaped by student ABs?
Our recent studies of student ABs
Favorable
indicate that ABs are correlated with
University Environment
Pre-Test Score (%)
(uncertainty; n)
students choice of discipline and retention.
Using a recently designed and preliminarily
UNC Calc-based Phys I (FCI 0.35)
71 (5%, n=41)
validated instrument,39 we have found that
(mostly majors)
CU Calc-based Phys I (FCI 0.6)
63 (2%, n=174)
the percentage of physics majors in a
(mostly
engineers)
course is correlated with the average
UNC Alg-based Phys I (FCI 0.13)
61 (5%, n=36)
student response to questions about the
40
(who
stayed
enrolled)
personal relevance of physics. ABs also
Students who started
49 (4%, n=78)
correlate with retention within individual
CU Non-Science Major Physics I
44 (4%, n=77)
courses. Sample data are shown in Figure
CU Non-Science Major Physics II
61 (n=34)
4. Additionally, in our pilot studies we
have observed correlations between student
Figure 4: Student favorable responses in AB survey
conceptual mastery of physics and their
category, Reality Personal View, issued at the beginning
attitudes and beliefs. Those students who
of term for a variety of different courses.
perform better in the course also have more
favorable ABs, and those students doing
worse also have less favorable ABs (that regress over a term).40 Note that these results show
clear connections, but they do not establish the nature of the relationship among student ABs,
performance and retention, which will be a subject of study in the current work.
The next steps of this study will be to make modifications in the evaluation instrument that
probes student ABs and to conduct full statistical analysis of large sample results. Based on
these results, we will change some of the questions and delineation of the factor groups
(categories of ABs) to improve consistency of the instrument. We will collect data on student
attitudes and beliefs in a variety of course environments (the suite of introductory and advanced
physics courses), in one-on-one and group interviews, and correlate these ABs with other student
characteristics (e.g. traditional demographics) and measures of student learning (such as

PD-7

conceptual mastery41). Particular emphasis will be placed on tracking student ABs in

environments that overlap with the other projects described in this CAREER proposal. Thereby,
we may begin to observe the synergistic effects of these programs (layered frames of context).
Through formative and summative evaluation we will be able to understand the process of shifts
in ABs and the relations of these shifts with student achievement. Over the long term we will
examine their role in student choice in future major and career. In particular, we will focus on
ABs for student populations that are traditionally under-represented in the sciences and how
these affect decisions for these populations who differentially switch out of STEM disciplines.42
Of course, the goal is to find what factors can be most effective at recruiting and retaining such
students in careers in the physical sciences.
This research will be conducted in collaboration with other faculty in the PER@C research
program (Prof. Wieman) and conducted primarily by a lead graduate student (under my
supervision) in the Physics Education Research Group at CU.
Outcomes (Individual Level): Build a model of student learning in the most localized layer of
context: tools, practices, and meta-cognitive skills that shape and are shaped by student learning.
At the same time these projects explicitly support education by improving course tools and
practices with the expectation that these lead to improved student mastery, attitudes and beliefs,
and retention in the sciences.
B.

COURSE CONTEXT

1. Applying differing tools with educational application: new course tools

How might we productively leverage the opportunities provided by the availability
of new technologies?
Over the last decade there has been an increase in the use of computer simulations to support
student learning in physics.43,44,45 With the enhanced capabilities of computers, their ubiquity in
the classroom, and the knowledge of how to engage students around particular ideas in physics, a
variety of computer tools have been found to promote student understanding in the
classroom.46,47,48 In this line of research into context of class practices that foster student learning
I examine:

What are the necessary features of these computer simulations to serve as educational
tools?

How might these new tools be productively applied in a variety of educational

environments?
Where do these tools enhance traditional forms of educational practice? Where do
they add value? Where are they limited in applicability?

The proposed work will build on an extensive foundation developed by the Physics
Education Technology (PhET) project at the University of Colorado.49 The PhET team has
created over three dozen computer simulations in physics around four particular design features.
1) The simulation designs and goals are based on educational research. 2) The coding is done by
high-level software professionals (partly supported by a private foundation) working closely as
part of a team with disciplinary experts and physics education researchers; this team enables the
development of simulations involving quite technically sophisticated software, graphics, and

PD-8

Fraction Correct

interfaces. Such development makes these simulations appealing to use, while they model a
wide range of physical behaviors and allow users to manipulate a wide variety of variables to
encourage open-ended exploration. 3) The range of expertise working on the PhET team
enables a rapid cycle through coding, testing with students, and refinement to optimize
effectiveness and user-friendliness. 4) The sophisticated software creates simulations that
embody predictive visual models of expert scientists, allowing many interesting but relatively
advanced concepts to become widely accessible.
Research on these simulations will reveal the conditions of their use that promotes student
learning individually, in groups, and in class environments. The PhET team has conducted pilot
studies of the use of these simulations; however they will be carried out in more detail with the
support of the CAREER program. These studies include: 1) asking a student a brief physics
question on material that they have not seen before and allowing them to play with a simulation
with no guidance before answering, 2) video-taped interviews in which students worked with a
simulation for 0.5-1 hours while thinking out loud, 3) simulations used in lecture followed by
short multiple-choice questions, 4) student surveys as to how useful to their learning they found
simulations to be both in the context of lectures and homework, 5) studies in which simulations
were used as direct replacements or supplements to traditional labs, 6) observations of students
working in groups to use simulations to answer homework problems.
In a pilot study in which computer simulations replaced real lab equipment in the circuits
laboratory of an introductory physics course, we observed that students using the virtual lab
learned relevant circuit concepts better than
1
CCK (N =99)
students who had engaged in the same
0.9
TRAD (N=132)
50
laboratory using real equipment. (See Figure
0.8
5.) By continuing studies of student use of
0.7
these simulations, through clinical interviews,
0.6
observations, and video analysis we will begin
0.5
0.4
to ascertain why students perform better using
0.3
these simulations. Further research will focus
0.2
on areas listed above as well as design and
0.1
study of curricula that effectively engage
0
students from all backgrounds with the
q1
q2
q3
cntl
simulations and associated physics. As part of
Question
the PhET project, under the support of the
Figure 5: Student final exam performance for
CAREER grant, a graduate research assistant
groups that had used simulations (CCK) or real
will lead the studies of simulation
equipment (TRAD) during a circuits laboratory.
effectiveness (described above) and develop
q1 3: three conceptual questions on circuits (ave
CCK = .593 and ave. TRAD = 0.476; p< 0.001).
(or modify existing) curricula to study the real
cntl: the remaining 26 questions of the final (no
and contextually productive application of
statistical difference for CCK and TRAD groups).
these computer simulations.
2. Education research and physics with educational application: new courses / programs
How might we include the questions of PER into the educational practices of
physics? What are the effects of such inclusion on student mastery of physics?
What are the effects on the broader scale the department, and institutional
factors?

PD-9

Based on work previously supported by the NSF,2,23 I will develop a new service-learning
program in the physics department at the University of Colorado. The central element of this
program will be a new course in physics education reform and physics education research for
advanced undergraduate and graduate students: Teaching and Learning Physics. The class builds
upon a successful model developed in my work at the University of California, San Diego.2,23, 51
The structure of the course includes three central components: study of pedagogical issues
(cognitive, psychological, educational), study of physics content, and practical experience
teaching in the community (both in Boulder area and within the University). Each of these
components is designed to complement the others by providing a differing perspective on the
same area of inquiry. For example, the same week that students read about studies that
document individuals' difficulties with the electric field, the students study the concept itself, and
teach it to others. This model has been demonstrated to increase student mastery of physics,
proficiency at teaching, and the likelihood that students engage in future teaching experiences.51
As occurred in the prior implementation, it is anticipated that this set of activities will attract
students to physics from all demographic backgrounds, increase the number of physics majors
enrolling in teacher education, improve student achievement in other courses, and build strong
and sustainable ties between the university and community partners.
As a research venue, this course will be a core of the study of student learning in context and
of the study of scaling and sustaining educational reforms. It will be in this course that the
studies of learning-by-teaching will occur, as described above. Data on students performance in
physics, education research and teaching will be collected through interviews, project work, and
pre- and post-test evaluation. At the same time, because this course has been offered previously
(and continues) at a similarly large scale research institution, comparative analysis of this
secondary implementation of the program will provide insight into the portability of this model
of educational practice. Data on institutional response (interviews, documentation of
institutional support, long-term outcomes for students and department) will be collected and
compared. Furthermore, this course serves as a bridge between studies of the individual and
studies of institutional response, the frames of context described in Figure 1. Research
surrounding this course will be conducted directly by the PI who will offer the course, and
ultimately by a post-doctoral fellow supported by this CAREER grant.
3. Study of secondary implementations with educational application: adapting reforms
While the physics education research community has developed many proven
reforms, their replication is not well studied. What are the necessary elements of
adopting proven educational reforms?
Many of the calls for educational reform,5,7,52 echo the calls from early last century.53 This is not
to say that we have not made progress. Research on how people learn has led to the development
of science teaching methods that have been shown to be more successful than traditional
practices.5,6,7 As a result of these calls and dedicated education research, a variety of very useful
curricula and practices have been developed.6,7 To date, however, there have been few studies of
what it means to replicate these known reforms. In addition to studying the core elements of a
given educational reform (for example Tutorials in Introductory Physics10), we must study the
critical elements of the context in which these tools will be used.

PD-10

With the support of the NSFs CCLI Adaptation and Implementation program, we will be
implementing several of these known reforms in our introductory calculus-based physics
sequence.54 As such, it provides an excellent opportunity to study the effects of secondary
implementation and the fidelity of replication of educational reforms. With the support of the
CAREER program a graduate researcher will be able to compare the features of successful
implementation of Tutorials in Introductory Physics at the University of Colorado with their
implementation at the University of Washington. Areas of investigation will include:

Assessment of the fidelity of the curricula -- are the curricular materials identical or
need they be modified?

What characteristics of the course, students, and surrounding departmental structure

promote or inhibit the adoption of Tutorials?

Do students learn the same material as at UW?
Are there complementary or competing effects from other educational reforms being
implemented (such as Peer Instruction9)?

The onset of the CAREER program will coincide with the end of the first year of the year
CCLI grant. As such, the first rounds of adoption of Tutorials will have occurred. For the
following year (the first year of the CAREER project), we will run comparative studies of
student achievement on conceptual surveys, attitudes and beliefs instrument (ABs), and
surrounding structure (e.g. coupling of Tutorials with the course). The second and third years
will be spent refining the implementation and examining the effort to create a sustainable
change. Because the CCLI program has proposed a model of hand-off of these reforms to other
departmental faculty, studying the process by which this succeeds or fails will determine the
necessary conditions for successful implementation of such reforms.
Outcomes (Course Level): Build a model of educational practices: use of tools, particular
course practices, and approaches to implementing known educational reforms. Such research
efforts will: support the research-based inclusion of computer simulations in a wide variety of
environments, create bridges between education and traditionally conceived domain of physics,
and implement a variety of educational reforms in the introductory physics sequence.
C.

DEPARTMENTAL CONTEXT

1. Faculty awareness and use of PER with educational application: improved faculty practice
How much do faculty know about research based reforms in physics teaching?
What tools might be used to increase faculty awareness and use of these materials
and practices?
As discussed above, a variety of educational reforms have been proven effective, but have failed
to become broadly adopted by the college and university teaching communities. In addition to
the context of implementation (the course), the surrounding departmental structure plays a
significant role.55,56,57 Particularly, it appears as though faculty lack awareness of these materials
and support for using them locally. To study these issues and their relations to other frames of
context of student learning, I anticipate participating as a research member in two projects
focused on the issues of faculty awareness of and facility at using physics education researchbased materials.

PD-11

The first project, led by Professors Charles Henderson (Western Michigan State University)
and Melissa Dancy (University of North Carolina at Charlotte), strives to understand faculty
knowledge about, attitudes towards and use of innovative instructional materials in introductory
physics courses (both calculus and algebra based sequences). The project will include a survey
of faculty practices, interviews of select faculty and observations of their practices. It will
provide baseline data of faculty practices from which we may understand the context of current
educational reform and address the development of future reforms. The second project, led by
researchers Dr. Matthew Schneps and Professor Phil Sadler (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics) seeks to increase faculty awareness of research based reforms and practices by
building on their well-known, NSF-funded Private Universe Project for K12 teacher
development. The program applies the same methodology of using video as a tool to alert faculty
to research in STEM learning, to provide visual models for instruction, and to promote
community among those seeking to change instruction in higher education.
The CAREER sponsored investigations of faculty awareness of research-based reforms will
use data collected in these two programs to understand the context for sustainable inclusion of
educational practices listed in prior sections. These data augment the studies secondary
implementations (section II.B3) in order to develop a more complete and coherent model of
implementing sustainable reforms. This line of research will begin in collaboration with these
two programs during years one and two of the CAREER program and become the subject of
more focused attention during years three to five. Case studies of faculty using particular
reforms, comparative analysis with local implementations of these same reforms (discussed in
section II.B), and analysis of aggregate data of the use of these reforms by faculty across the
nation will provide material to triangulate an understanding of faculty awareness, and use of
educational reforms in physics.
2. Seeding faculty change with educational application: improved faculty practice
What mechanisms might we introduce to support the development of future
faculty in physics education?
Can these same programs be used to promote the reform of current faculty
practices?
Over the last decade departments of physics have been increasing their attention to educational
practice.1,58 At the same time the demands on the faculty and the hosting physics departments for
conducting traditional research compete with these increasing demands for educational practice
research remains to be the main focus at large-scale, PhD-granting institutions.56,57 In this
broader frame of context (the departmental level), I examine two programs designed to support
the development of future faculty and to promote the inclusion of research-based educational
practices in the physics department.
The first program, a departmentally-based Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) program, includes
graduate students and postdocs in bi-weekly seminars and mentored teaching opportunities.59,60,61
The program is designed to simultaneously support the development of these future faculty in
teaching and educational practice, and to support the introduction of educational reforms in the
department. As part of the PFF program, graduate students and postdocs will be encouraged to
participate in education and outreach opportunities, including service to the lower division
physics courses. Participants will select a track of involvement that will include: participating in
regular meetings, engaging in micro-teaching opportunities, presenting on topics of interest,

PD-12

teaching in selected university environments, participating in reform of the undergraduate

sequence, and ultimately (as occurred in prior instantiations of this model), taking over the
program. By participating over several years under the guidance of the PI and faculty mentors,
students will gain the expertise to run the program.19
The second program is a model of postdoctoral fellowship in physics education research. In
collaboration with Professor Carl Wieman (University of Colorado, Boulder), we seek to develop
and study a new model of simultaneously supporting reform of departmental practice, and the
preparation of future physics education research faculty. The Senior Teaching Fellow model is
based on the use of recent graduates with discipline-based Ph.D. level training who have decided
to pursue a career in teaching or education research. The Senior Teaching Fellow (STF) works
in partnership with the faculty who are introducing educational reforms (such as those listed in
section II.B) to develop course goals, implement the desired transformations, carry out
assessments, and carefully archive all the course materials for subsequent reuse. STFs will
receive ongoing training in the relevant research on learning and discipline-based educational
research by the PI and professional research partners. Our hypothesis is that after the STF and
the partnering faculty member have taught a course together to carry out a given transformation
and carefully preserve the materials in a user-friendly form, it is then practical for the same or a
different individual faculty member to teach the transformed course in subsequent terms without
undue effort. Our pilot work has provided some support for this hypothesis, but much more
work is needed to establish its validity. After completing most of the transformation of one
course, the STF will then move on to team with a new faculty member in the transformation of a
second course. Part of the design study is to find what conditions (or contexts) are necessary to
ensure that it is easier for subsequent teachers to successfully teach the course in the transformed
approach than for them to revert back to the more traditional, but less well documented and
supported approach.
While the CAREER project will not provide the funds to run these two programs, a
postdoctoral fellow will be hired during the later portions of this grant to analyze the effects of
these programs. Data will collected to research the effects at the individual, course, and
departmental levels. These data include: measuring conceptual development of students
participating in reformed classes, assessing individual graduate and post-doctoral evaluations and
shifts in attitudes and abilities, tracking shifts in attitudes and practices of faculty participating in
these programs, documenting shifting classroom practices, and departmental response.
3. Examination of top-down influences with educational application: departmental awareness
What are the effects of departmental norms on educational practice?
What are the relations among these various frames of context of student learning?
Departmental norms and practices play a significant role in shaping those reforms and research
projects described above. Simultaneously, it is anticipated that these activities will shape the
departmental norms and practices. In this segment of the study, I study the dynamics and
relational nature of departmental practice, course reforms, and individual student learning the
interplay among these frames of context. For instance, it is generally recognized that from
perspective of nested frames of context (Figure 1), the system is generally hierarchical- -- the
outer influences the inner more than visa versa.21 It is worthy of documenting the prevailing
norms and how they influence the more local frames of context58 -- Are faculty rewarded or
discouraged from participating in educational reforms? How might these messages influence

PD-13

graduate student / future faculty perception of the role of the department? At the same time,
localized reforms have been shown to influence broader culture. For example, the introduction
of new personal response systems (individual infra-red responders) used in Peer Instruction9 in
one course in introductory physics has spread throughout the department and now across the
university. The practice has become so widespread that the use of these tools has been recently
studied by researchers in the Department of Communication.62
In the latter portions of this CAREER grant, in coordination with partnering researchers and
the supported post-doctoral fellow, I will document the institutional practices which shape and
are shaped by the particular research programs and reforms described above. Data will include
documenting the materials used for faculty evaluation of teaching practice, level of departmental
financial support for educational reforms, and the widespread adoption (or lack thereof) of some
of these practices.
Outcomes (Departmental Level): model of relations among individual, course, and surrounding
structures. Models for realistic reorganization of educational practice to support course reforms
at the departmental level without a significant shift in resources (faculty time or funding). Proofof-concept of research-based approaches to improve education at a broad level.

III. Timeline:
The timing of each of these projects is discussed above in the description of the research and
summarized below in Figure 6.

PI / Gr
Gr
Gr

Departmental
Norms

PI / Gr
PI
PI
PD
PD

Future Faculty

Gr
Gr
Gr
PD
PD

Faculty Use of
PER

Teaching &
Learning

Gr
Gr
Gr

Department
Course Reforms
(ABs)

Role of
Simulations

PI
PI
PD
PD

Course

Attitudes &
Beliefs

Year 1 Gr
Year 2 Gr
Year 3 Gr
Year 4
Year 5

Learning by
Teaching

Representational
Competence

Individual

Collab
Collab
PI
PI

Collab
PI
PI
PI/ PD
PI/PD

PI/ PD
PI/PD
PI/PD

Figure 6: CAREER Project Timeline: Project managed by graduate student (Gr), Postdoc (PD) under supervision
of PI, jointly run (PI/Gr) or directly run by the PI, or part of a larger collaboration (Collab).

IV. Integration of Research, Education, and Departmental Practices:

Because these research projects follow a design experiment methodology and because the
research projects themselves focus on education, there is necessarily a tight coupling with
educational practice, as described throughout section II. These coordinated research studies are
designed also to foster the development of the newly formed Physics Education Research Group
at Colorado (PER@C). As one of the leading faculty members of the research group, this
CAREER grant will support both my professional development and the graduate doctoral
emphasis in PER in the physics department. With the anticipated continued growth of the new
PER@C group, the University of Colorado is poised to become one of the major research centers
PD-14

in physics education in the United States. At the end of our first year, four faculty, five graduate
students, and one post-doc contribute to the research program at CU. With the support of the
CAREER, our efforts will continue to grow and we will be able to support graduate students and
post-doctoral fellows who are now applying to join the CU program.

V. Prior Work:
In one line of NSF supported research (NSF - PFSMETE # 9809496, $153,000 8/1/99 7/31/2001), I developed and studied programs (a new class, graduate program and a study of
postdocs) that blended physics, education, and community partnership. Published work has
appeared in the Journal of College Science Teaching,2 the International Journal of Science
Education23 and the Journal of the Scholarship of Learning and Teaching.51 In another of NSFsupported project (NSF - IERI# 0090294, $118,496 1/1/01 - 12/31/01), I examined the structure
of educational systems and studied principles and mechanisms for sustaining and scaling
educational reforms, leading to talks and reviewed publications in the Proceedings of the Physics
Education Research Conference.61,63 Beginning summer of 2004, I anticipate becoming PI on an
NSF Course Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement, Adaptation and Implementation grant
(proposal DUE-0410744)54 which will support the transformation of practices in one of the
introductory calculus-based physics courses described in section II.B3.

VI. Advisory Committee:

In addition to the support of the physics department and members of the Physics Education
Research Group at the University of Colorado, three senior faculty will serve as mentors in
faculty development.
Carl Wieman, Distinguished Professor of Physics at the University of Colorado and the
only winner of both a Nobel Prize and the NSF Directors award for Teaching Scholars.
He is widely recognized for his talents and commitment to education. He is a University of
Colorado Presidential Teaching Scholar. He serves on several National Academy boards
including the Board on Physics and Astronomy and the Board on Science Education (which
he chairs). He directs the physics education technology project (PhET) at the University of
Colorado and is a co-PI on an NSF supported STEM-TP grant, Transforming Science and
Mathematics Teacher Preparation
Michael Cole, University Professor, University of California. Professor, Departments of
Communication and Psychology University of California, San Diego. Prof. Cole is
recognized as an international leader in the field of cultural psychology. He has pioneered
work in his studies of student learning and its relations to cultural systems. He is a Fellow
of the National Academy of Education and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Andrea diSessa, Chancellors Professor of Education, University of California, Berkeley.
He is the director of the Boxer Computer Environment Project and worked extensively
pioneering the use of computers in education. He has written extensively about student
learning in physics. Andrea diSessa is a member of the National Academy of Education.
Finally, because I am an active member of the physics education research community
(organizing sessions, workshops, and meetings of the AAPT and PERC), I have a large network
of faculty with whom I shall consult on these varying research projects. This group includes but
is not limited to: David Hammer, Lillian McDermott, Sanjay Rebello, Edward Redish and others.
PD-15

CAREER: Physics Education Research and Contexts of Student Learning

University of Colorado, Boulder
REFERENCES
For example see: American Physical Societys Statement 99.2: RESEARCH IN PHYSICS
EDUCATION, adopted May 21, 1999. http://www.aps.org/statements/99_2.cfm
2
Finkelstein, N.D.(2003). Coordinating Instruction in Physics and Education, Journal of College
Science Teaching, 33(1), 37-41.
3
Aarons, A.A. (1976). Cultivating the capacity for formal reasoning: Objectives and procedures
in an introductory physical science course. American Journal of Physics, 44(9), 834.
4
Hestenes, D. Wells, M., and Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory. Physics
Teacher, 30, 141-158
5
Hake, R.R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student
survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics,
66, 64-74
6
McDermott, L.C. and Redish, E.F. (1999). Resource letter: PER-1: Physics education research.
American Journal of Physics, 67(9), 755-767.
7
Redish, E.F. (2003). Teaching Physics with the Physics Suite, (New York: John Wiley and
Sons).
8
Reiner, M., Slotta, J. D., Chi, M. T. H., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Naive physics reasoning: A
commitment to substance-based conceptions. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 1-34
9
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer Instruction (Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall).
10
McDermott, L.C. and Schaffer, P.S., (1998). Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall).
11
Laws, P. (1997). Workshop Physics Activity (New York: John Wiley and Sons).
12
Goldberg, F. and Bendall, S. (1995). Making the Invisible Visible: A teaching/learning
environment that builds on a new view of physics learner. American Journal of Physics,
63(11), 978-991; CPU project http://cpuproject.sdsu.edu/CPU/
13
diSessa, A.A. (1988). Knowledge in Pieces. In Forman and Puffall (Eds.) Constructivism in
the Computer Age (Hillsdale NJ: Lawernce Erlbaum).
14
Redish, E.F., (1994). Implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics. American Journal
of Physics, 62, 796-803.
15
von Glasersfeld, E. (1983). Learning as a constructive activity. In J. C. Bergeron and N.
Herscovics (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of
the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Montreal: University of
Montreal)
16
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a
scientific conception: towards a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211227.
17
diSessa, A., Elby, A, & Hammer, D. (2003). J's epistemological stance and strategies. In G. M.
Sinatra and P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional Conceptual Change (pp. 237-290). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
1

Ref-1

18

Rebello, N. S., Zollman, D. A., Allbaugh, A. R., Engelhardt, P. V., Gray, K. E., Hrepic, Z., et
al. (to be published). Dynamic Transfer: A Perspective from Physics Education Research. In J.
P. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of Learning: Research & Perspectives (Greenwich, CT: Information
Age Publishing)
19
Lave J and Wenger E (1991). Situated Learning: legitimate peripheral participation
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
20
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking Cognitive Development in Social Context.
(New York, NY: Oxford University Press).
21
Cole, M., (1996). Cultural Psychology: a Once and Future Discipline (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press).
22
Engestrm, Y. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a test bench of activity theory: The
case of primary care medical practice, in Chaiklin, S. and Lave, J., eds., Understanding
Practice: Perspectives on Activity and Context (New York: Cambridge University Press).
23
Finkelstein, N.D. (to appear, 2004). Learning physics in context: a study of student learning
about electricity and magnetism, International Journal of Science Teaching.
24
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life.
(Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.)
25
Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating
complex interventions in classroom settings, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.
26
Kelly, A.E. (2003). Theme Issue: The Role of Design in Educational Research, Educational
Researcher, 32(1).
27
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes
edited by Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S. & Souberman, E.. (Cambridge MA: MIT
Press).
28
Bransford, J.D.. Brown, A L and Cocking, R. R (eds.) (2002). How People Learn, Expanded
Edition (Natl. Acad. Press, Wash., DC) p.79
29
Chi, M., Feltovich, P., and Glaser, R., (1981). Categorization and representation of physics
problems by experts and novice, Cognitive Science, 5, 121 - 152.
30
Mestre, J. (1991). Learning and instruction in pre-college physical science, Physics Today 44:9
56-62.
31
Kohl, P. and Finkelstein, N., (to appear). Representational Format, Student Choice, and
Problem Solving in Physics, in review, Proceedings of the Physics Education Research
Conference 2004, Sacramento, CA (Melville, NY: AIP Publishing.)
32
Peer Led Team Learning: http://www.pltl.org
33
Sokoloff, D. R. and Thornton, R. K. (1998). Using Interactive Lecture Demonstrations to
Create an Active Learning Environment, Phys. Teach 35, 340-347.
34
Heller, P. Keith, R. & Anderson, S. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative
grouping. Parts I & II, American Journal of Physics, 60.
35
Duch,B, Gron,S. and Allen,D. (eds). (2001). The Power of Problem-Based Learning, A
Practical "How To" For Teaching Undergraduate Courses in Any Discipline (Henderson, VA:
Stylus Publishing, LLC).
36
Papert, S. and Harel, I. (1991). Situating Constructionism in S. Papert and I. Harel (eds)
Constructionism (Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation)

Ref-2

37

Hammer, D, Elby, A., Scherr,R. and Redish, E. F. (to appear 2004). Resources, Framing, and
Transfer. In , J. Mestre (Ed.) Transfer of Learning: Research and Perspectives (Greenwich,
CT: Information Age Publishing)
38
Redish, E.F., Saul, J.M. and Steinberg, R. N. (1998). Student Expectations In Introductory
Physics, American Journal of Physics 66 212-224.
39
Adams, W., Perkins, K., Finkelstein, N. and Wieman, C. (to appear). The Colorado Learning
About Science Survey, in review Proceedings of the Physics Education Research Conference
2004, Sacramento, CA. (Melville, NY: AIP Publishing)
40
Perkins, K., Adams, W., Pollock, S., Finkelstein, N., and Wieman, C., (to appear). Correlating
student attitudes with student learning using the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science
Survey. in review Proceedings of the Physics Education Research Conference 2004,
Sacramento, CA. (Melville, NY: AIP Publishing).
41
Seymour, E. and Zeilik, M. Field-tested Learning Assessment Guide (FLAG),
http://flaguide.org
42
Seymour, E. and Hewitt, N. (1997). Talking about Leaving, (Boulder, CO: Westview Press)
43
Redish, E.F. (1993). Is the Computer Appropriate for Teaching Physics?. Computers in
Physics 7.
44
Steinberg, R.N. (2000). Computers in teaching science: To simulate or not to simulate?
American Journal of Physics. 68, S37-S41 (2000)
45
Zacharia, Z. and Anderson, O.R. (2003). The effects of an interactive computer-based
simulation prior to performing a laboratory inquiry-based experiment on students conceptual
understanding of physics. American Journal of Physics 71(6), 618.
46
diSessa, A. A. (2000). Changing Minds: Computers, Learning, and Literacy (Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press).
47
Redish, E.F. Saul, J.M. and Steinberg, R.N. (1997). On the effectiveness of active-engagement,
microcomputer-based laboratories, American Journal of Physics. 65(1), 45-54.
48
Linn, M. C. (1998) The Impact of Technology on Science Instruction: Historical Trends and
Current Opportunities. In B.J. Fraser and K.G. Tobins (Eds.) International Handbook of
Science Education (Dordrecht: Kluwer) 265-294
49
Physics Education Technology Project: http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phet
50
Finkelstein, N, Perkins, K., Adams, W., Kohl, P., and Podolefsky, N., (to appear). Can
Computer Simulations Replace Real Equipment in Undergraduate Laboratories?, in review,
Proceedings of the Physics Education Research Conference 2004, Sacramento, CA. (Melville,
NY: AIP Publishing).
51
Finkelstein, N. (to appear). Teaching and Learning Physics, Journal of Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning.
52
L. C. McDermott (1993) How we teach and how students learn - A mismatch? American
Journal of Physics 61(4): 295-299.
53
Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and Education, (New York: Collier Books).
54
Finkelstein, N., Pollock, S., and Dubson, M., Implementing Tutorials Sustainably, NSF
Course Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement, Adaptation and Implementation grant
(proposal DUE-0410744) Recommended for funding by the DUE and EHR, June 2004.
55
Sarason, S.B. (1989). The Creation of Settings and the Future Societies. (San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Publishers).
56
Rogers, E. M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed., New York, NY: Free Press).

Ref-3

57

Fullan, M. (2001). The New Meaning of Educational Change (3rd ed., New York, NY:
Teachers College Press)
58
As evidence by an increasing number of articles on educational reform in main journals, e.g.:
Handelsman et. al (2004), Science, 304(5670), 521; or Hilborn, R.C. and Howes, R.H., (2003)
Physics Today, 56(9).
59
Preparing Future Faculty Program: http://www.preparing-faculty.org/
60
Price, E. (to appear). Encouraging Faculty to View Teaching and Learning as a Researchable
Endeavor: A transfer perspective on the role of graduate preparation, Proceedings of the
Physics Education Research Conference 2004, Sacramento, CA. (Melville, NY: AIP Press).
61
Finkelstein, N. (to appear). Seeding change: the challenges of transfer and transformation of
educational practice and research in physics Proceedings of the Physics Education Research
Conference 2004, Sacramento, CA. (Melville, NY: AIP Press).
62
Jackson, M. and Trees, (2003). A. Clicker Implementation and Assessment: A report to
Information and Technology Services and to the Faculty Teaching Excellence Program
(University of Colorado, Boulder, http://comm.colorado.edu/mjackson/clickerreport.htm).
63
Finkelstein, N. (2003), Bridging Critical Points: Discontinuities in high school and university
physics education, Proceedings of the Physics Education Research Conference 2003, (New
York: PERC Publishing).

Ref-4